AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE

American Jewish Committee The Jacob Blaustein Building165 East 56 StreetNew York, NY 10022

The American Jewish Committee publishes in these areas:•Hatred and Anti-Semitism • Pluralism • Israel• American Jewish Life • International Jewish Life • Human Rights

www.ajc.org

September 2007 $2.50

AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE

Contents

The Ideological Foundations of the Boycott Campaign Against Israel 1

The Left’s Opposition to Jewish Self-Determination 2

Two Stages in the Evolution of Left-Wing Anti-Semitism 5

The Apartheid Analogy 7

Distorting the Meaning of Apartheid 9

The Agenda of Delegitimization 13

Footnotes 14

iii

Ben Cohen is associate director of the Department onAnti-Semitism and Extremism at the American JewishCommittee. His recent writings on the anti-Israel boycottcampaign can be read at www.ajcwire.org.

Cover photo from:http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2006/06/343565.jpg

Copyright © American Jewish CommitteeSeptember 2007

1

The Ideological Foundations of the Boycott Campaign Against Israel

Ben Cohen

Recent discussion regarding the ideological basis for a boycott ofIsrael, whether in academia or in response to the campaign for theBoycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) forcefully promoted bya network of Palestinian and international NGOs, has concentratedupon two interrelated issues: first, the thematic overlap betweenanti-Zionism and anti-Semitism; and secondly, the emergence ofthe left as the principal driver of anti-Zionist discourse in Westerndemocracies.

This focus should not convey the impression that contempo-rary anti-Semitism is reducible only to anti-Zionism, nor thatmalign notions about the Jewish people are the sole preserve of theleft. Anti-Semitism in its classic form—that is, hatred of Jews large-ly unrelated to the existence or actions of the Jewish state and root-ed in national-religious prejudice—persists in many countries,particularly in Eastern Europe and the republics of the former Sovi-et Union. Political currents outside the left, most obviously on theextreme right, as well as among the various strains of Islamism,remain ideologically wedded to classic anti-Semitism and incorpo-rate anti-Zionism on that basis.

It is equally true that the extremes of left and right identifyincreasingly with the portrait of Jewish power as global, transcen-dental, and unaccountable; that they use the terms “Jew” and“Zionist” interchangeably; and that they admiringly regardIslamism as the primary source of opposition to American and

ignores is the moral flimsiness of a position in which only Israel, outof nearly two hundred states in the international system, is selectedfor dissolution, and the disregard for the impact such a catastrophewould have upon Jews both inside and outside the Jewish state.

As I have argued elsewhere,1 this position mirrors the disdainwith which Jewish concerns have historically been regarded by alarge section of the left. This was as true of the period before theemergence of political Zionism as it was after. In its pre-Zionistphase, left-wing anti-Semitism had a decidedly economic thrust.For example, Karl Marx’s best-known comments about Jews andJudaism were spiced with crude anti-Semitic language about “huck-stering” and “haggling.” This characterization of Judaism as ametaphor for capitalism can be found in his 1843 response toBruno Bauer, “On the Jewish Question.” Although Marx actuallychallenges Bauer’s opposition to Jewish emancipation, the overrid-ing thrust of his thesis is that Judaism is identified with an economybased upon monetary exchange and private property. Outside ofthese parameters, Marx cannot conceive of a space for Jewish exis-tence. Hence his conclusion, “The social emancipation of the Jew isthe emancipation of society from Judaism.”2

To the extent that all group identities are constructed aroundnarratives of history or religion or culture, they can be characterizedas synthetic or even artificial. Yet for much of the left in the latenineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the objectionable natureof Jewish identity, in contrast to the identities of other groups,stemmed from its artificiality, which was understood as being eco-nomic in origin. Agents of a monetary economy could not consti-tute a community, much less a nationality: hence the equation ofJewish emancipation with Jewish disappearance, as intimated byMarx. These views partly explain the contempt that marked theexchanges of so many revolutionaries on the perennial “Jewish ques-tion.” Rosa Luxemburg, herself a Jew, put it baldly in one of her pri-vate letters: “Why do you come to me with your special Jewishsorrows? I feel just as sorry for the wretched Indian victims in Putu-mayo, the Negroes in Africa.... I cannot find a special corner in myheart for the ghetto.”3

The Left’s Opposition to Jewish Self-Determination 3

“Zionist” ambitions in the Middle East and, by extension, theworld. However, such mirroring cannot explain and should notobscure the distinctive character of much of the current left dis-course on Israel. Indeed, to classify this discourse as simply aninstance of extremism is to ignore that its most disturbing aspect—the insistence that Jewish state be quarantined as a necessary steptoward its eventual elimination—has penetrated the mainstream ofpolitical debate and exchange.

What needs to be interrogated, therefore, is the set of ideas thatunderlie the boycott movement as well as their appeal, both actualand potential. What unifies these ideas is a grand strategy of delegit-imization that highlights elements of theory and ideology, historyand comparative politics. In opposing the existence of a Jewishstate, the boycott movement remains faithful to the long-held oppo-sition of many left-wing ideologues toward Jews asserting them-selves as an identifiable, autonomous collective. In advocating theeconomic, cultural, and political isolation of Israel, the boycottmovement borrows from multiple historical legacies, notably thestate policy of anti-Semitism, formally presented as anti-Zionism,practiced in the Soviet Union, as well as the Arab League’s three-tiereconomic boycott of Israel (namely, the boycott of Israeli compa-nies, of companies that engage in business with Israel, and of com-panies that engage in business with companies engaged in businesswith Israel). Finally, in demonizing Israel by comparing it with theformer apartheid regime in South Africa—a grave deceit that is acore concern of this paper—the boycott movement seeks to forceIsrael to abandon, internally, its Jewish character and, externally, itssovereignty.

The Left’s Opposition to Jewish Self-Determination

It is this entrenched opposition to Jewish self-determination—in anage, no less, when progressives celebrate the identity politics of mar-ginal, disempowered groups—that has led to the charge of anti-Semi-tism being leveled at much of the left. This is commonly and angrilyrefuted with the counterclaim that opposition to a state is radicallydifferent from hatred of an entire people. But what such a response

2 The Ideological Foundations of the Boycott Campaign Against Israel

themselves and for the world. In other words, they are told that theprincipal source of contemporary Jewish misfortune, as well as a pri-mary cause of injustice and disorder in international society, is theJewish state.

In his seminal essay, Anti-Semite and Jew,5 Jean-Paul Sartre pro-vided a description of an abstracted, idealized type closely associatedwith this convoluted reasoning. Rather provocatively, he named thistype the “democrat.” In framing the problem, Sartre observed: “Theanti-Semite reproaches the Jew with being Jewish; the democratreproaches him with willfully considering himself a Jew.”

The “democrat” is a “feeble” protector of Jews, argued Sartre,because while those Jews who discard their Jewish identity acquire anobility in the eyes of the democrat, those who embrace their iden-tity are by definition a danger, to themselves and to others. The“democrat” in Sartre’s essay warns us: “The Jews will come backfrom exile with such insolence and hunger for vengeance that I amafraid of a new outburst of anti-Semitism.”

Such “insolence” may be said to have taken the form of theState of Israel and is what lies behind the ire of today’s “democrats.”For them, Israel exemplifies the refusal of most Jews to respond totheir newly-permissive environments by disappearing, as well astheir apparent stubbornness in clinging to the anachronism of thenation-state (especially when their dubious claim to nationality hasbeen indulged at the expense of a genuine nation that has been bothcolonized and dispossessed). Thus are the historical consistencies ofleft-wing anti-Semitism demonstrated; so, too, is the ostensibly pre-cise boundary between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism torn down.

Two Stages in the Evolution of Left-Wing Anti-Semitism

In broad terms, then, one can distinguish two stages in the evolu-tion of left-wing anti-Semitism. The first predates Zionism, is root-ed in the critique of capitalism, and is typified by Marx. The secondcoincides with the emergence of Zionism and the opposition toZionism, is rooted in an anti-imperialist paradigm, and is typified

Two Stages in the Evolution of Left-Wing Anti-Semitism 5

What is supremely ironic is that the contemporary revivers ofthis negationist approach—those who insist that Zionism representsa surrender to anti-Semitism, who go on to claim that anti-Semi-tism is simply a rhetorical trick to muzzle criticism of the State ofIsrael, who grudgingly concede that Jewish identity may have, afterall, a valid religious component, but stringently reject anythingbeyond that—present their approach as the key to making Jewishcommunities secure. From a Jewish perspective, such a position istransparently dishonest. Isaac Deutscher, the Jewish Marxist histori-an, cogently summarized why in a 1954 interview in which heexplained that his original opposition to Zionism “was based on aconfidence in the European labor movement, or, more broadly, inEuropean society and civilization, which that society and civiliza-tion have not justified.”4

Would such confidence be justified now? It is true that Jews liv-ing in postwar Europe have known an unprecedented degree ofsecurity, underpinned by a range of tangible factors, from robustlaws combating anti-Semitism to educational programs promotingtolerance and awareness of Jewish history. However, security is notguaranteed by structural measures alone. Since the eruption of thesecond Palestinian intifada in September 2000, European Jews haveundergone a security crisis without parallel in the post-1945 period.In part, this is because of a dramatic increase in anti-Jewish inci-dents recorded in nearly every European state, intimately related tothe troughs and peaks of conflict in the Middle East. But it is alsothe product of an discursive environment of discourse in whichIsrael is often portrayed, in general terms, as a rogue state and, inspecific terms, as a reincarnation of the one state to have most out-raged the liberal conscience in recent memory—apartheid SouthAfrica.

Herein lies the paradox. The existence of the State of Israel hasbeen a critical pillar supporting the greater sense of security andconfidence that Jews in Europe and elsewhere have enjoyed in theyears following the Holocaust. Despite that, they are told by anti-Zionists that the State of Israel is a critical source of insecurity, for

4 The Ideological Foundations of the Boycott Campaign Against Israel

The writings on Zionism churned out by the Soviet state apparatus,camouflaged as social science, portrayed the movement as an organ-ic outgrowth of Judaism’s racist doctrines, notably the concept ofthe “Chosen People.” Although the Soviets developed and popular-ized this inversion of Jewish theology, one does not have to delveinto Soviet archives to find examples of it. During the conflictbetween Israel and Hezbollah in July 2006, the Norwegian newspa-per Aftenposten published an article by Jostein Gaarder,7 a popularNorwegian author, alleging that Israel’s military actions in Lebanonwere a demonstration of the conceit and hubris that comes with thestatus of “Chosen People.” From the Soviet Union’s standpoint, thisnotion of chosenness elevated Zionism into a transnational foe,along with “racism,” “imperialism,” and “militarism.” Standing inits way, however, were the peoples of Africa, the Arab states, Asia,and Latin America.

The Apartheid Analogy

The delegitimization strategy waged against Israel today, and partic-ularly its apartheid component, owes much to the Soviet Union. Asthe international campaign against Israel waged by states alignedwith the Soviet Union, as well as among the Non-Aligned Move-ment, escalated during the 1970s, the apartheid analogy came intoplay. The clearest example of this was Resolution 3379, passed bythe UN General Assembly in 1975 with active Soviet encourage-ment, which categorized Zionism as a form of racism. The resolu-tion also assisted in the creation of a dedicated Palestine bureaucracywithin the UN secretariat.

Resolution 3379 was significant in that it punctured the West-phalian norms underlying the UN Charter, particularly regardingthe sovereign equality of states, through its incorporation of the keytropes of Soviet anti-Zionism. By bracketing Zionism withapartheid and racism, the resolution effectively said that Israel wasless of a state and more of a toxic growth within the internationalsystem. In its preamble, the resolution approvingly noted “...resolu-tion 77 (XII) adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Gov-

The Apartheid Analogy 7

by Sartre’s “democrat.” It is in this second stage, in which Zionismas a movement is regarded as a harmful force on a global scale andthe State of Israel is portrayed as a foreign body inserted into theheart of the Arab homeland, that the origins of the apartheid analo-gy can be discerned.

The notion of Zionism as a global threat to colonized nationsand as a strategic tool of empire was enthusiastically embraced bythe New Left in the 1960s. Given the anti-Stalinist orientation ofmuch of the New Left, it is striking that the representation of Zion-ism which was so readily adopted was, in fact, a Soviet creation—one, moreover, that was entirely predictable, given the activepromotion of anti-Semitism in the USSR in the wake of the Doc-tors’ Plot of 1948 and the associated campaign against “rootless cos-mopolitans.” What the Soviet pamphlets demonized as“international Zionism” was a fusion of czarist-era anti-Semitismwith the anti-imperialist bluster of the Soviet regime.

In that regard, two distinctly Soviet libels stand out, both ofwhich still claim adherents on the contemporary left. The first con-cerns the Holocaust. Soviet revisionists engaged, not in the denialof the extermination itself, but in the transfer of responsibility forthe extermination. The Zionist movement was accused of collabo-rating with the Nazis in the implementation of the Final Solutionto such a degree that the Holocaust became “the autogenocide ofthe Twentieth Century.”6 This ugly distortion was echoed in partsof the Western left, most famously in the form of a play entitledPerdition, which almost came to the London stage in the 1980s andremains in active circulation among anti-Zionists today. Based onthe 1954 libel trial in Israel involving Rudolf Kastner, who hadbeen accused of collaborating with the Nazis in order to rescue Jewsin occupied Hungary, Perdition was, in the words of its late author,Jim Allen, a tale of “privileged Jewish leaders” collaborating “in theextermination of their own kind in order to help bring about aZionist state, Israel, a state which itself is racist.”

The second libel concerns the insidious essence of Judaism and,flowing from that, the global reach of Jewish and Zionist influence.

6 The Ideological Foundations of the Boycott Campaign Against Israel

structure and government policy. This shift is one reason why theapartheid analogy has been able to slip from the margins into main-stream discourse in the West.

This does not make the analogy any more acceptable. Inessence, the apartheid analogy remains a slander, one found all over:in the Iranian press; on Arab satellite television channels; in the aca-demic boycott motions submitted to British academic unions in2005, 2006, and 2007; in the boycott resolution passed by the rep-resentatives of the Sor Trondelag regional parliament in Norway in2005 (and revoked in 2006); and, most importantly, in the corri-dors of the United Nations, where many officials still behave asthough Resolution 3379, revoked in a curt single-line resolution in1991, is still on the books. The UN continues to sponsor confer-ences and meetings, such as the World Conference Against Racismin Durban in 2001, that are little more than excuses to pile oppro-brium upon Israel.9 For many, the definition dictates the solution:Pregnant within the accusation that the State of Israel practicesapartheid is the recommendation for Israel’s termination.

Distorting the Meaning of Apartheid

One lamentable feature of the present debate is that precious littleeffort is expended on recalling what apartheid in South Africa actu-ally constituted. Therefore, when applied to Israel, the analogy is, atbest, a careless and hasty attempt to graft the structure of one stateonto another, simply because tensions and divisions over citizen-ship, land use, and access to services are a fact of life in Israel (asthey are in other multiethnic societies). At worst, it represents thetransformation of the word “apartheid” into a sheer pejorative term,removed from its southern African context and stripped of its closehistorical linkage with Afrikaner nationalism.

What, then, did apartheid involve? In the first instance,apartheid involved the enforced domination of the ruling minoritybelonging to one group over the oppressed majority belonging toanother group. In South Africa, 90 percent of the population wascomposed of nonwhites disenfranchised and deprived of fundamen-

Distorting the Meaning of Apartheid 9

ernment of the Organization of African Unity at its twelfth ordinarysession, held at Kampala from 28 July to 1 August 1975, which con-sidered ‘that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racistregime in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialistorigin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure andbeing organically linked in their policy aimed at repression of thedignity and integrity of the human being.’” The Kampala formula-tion strongly reflected both the imperatives of Soviet policy (itsdomestic anti-Semitism and its embrace of the Arab cause abroad)and the anti-colonialist idiom used to express that policy.

Indeed, 1975 also saw the publication of Valery Skurlatov’snotorious tome Zionism and Apartheid, by the state-run Politizadatpublishers in Ukraine.8 Transparently anti-Semitic in substance andtone, Skurlatov’s work expounded on the “organic link” referred toin the Kampala formulation: “Racial biological doctrines, accordingto which people are divided into ‘chosen people’ and goyim, havebeen turned into official ideology and state policy in Israel andSouth Africa, where the ‘inferior’ are forcibly separated from the‘superior.’ That is what apartheid is.” In a shrill conclusion, Skurla-tov claimed that in their “death agony,” both Zionism and apartheidhad adopted Nazi Germany’s propensity for “adventurism”: “This iswhy the world’s attention now focuses on apartheid and Zionism;their secrets have become known, and the nations have discoveredthe abominable essence of the ‘God-chosen.’”

Given that the apartheid analogy was a favorite theme of Sovietincitement against Jews, its persistence in the post-Soviet era isalarming, as is the apparent indifference shown by its current advo-cates to its totalitarian provenance. What the current advocates havein common with their Soviet precursors is their invocation of theword “apartheid” as part of a strategy to secure Israel’s isolation andreverse its international legitimacy; at the same time, their versionstrives for greater respectability, insofar as it has largely been purgedof the nakedly anti-Semitic foundations upon which the Soviet anti-Zionists based themselves. Instead, the concentration is on the sup-posed similarities between apartheid and Zionism in terms of state

8 The Ideological Foundations of the Boycott Campaign Against Israel

than supports their case, some advocates of the apartheid analogy—most notably the former U.S. president, Jimmy Carter10—basetheir approach on an analysis of Israel’s land policies in the Palestin-ian territories. From this standpoint, apartheid is interpreted as thestate managing land conflicts between competing groups in aninequitable fashion, with resulting human rights violations, asopposed to a discriminatory legal framework regulating citizenshipand human rights.

This shift in emphasis begs an obvious question that leads, inturn, to other questions. If the fundamental features of SouthAfrican apartheid are absent, then why use the term? Is the implica-tion that land policies are the crux of the matter, rather than, say,the denial of voting rights to a vast swathe of the population? And ifthat were the case, why was the key demand of the anti-apartheidmovement in South Africa expressed as “one person, one vote”?

We will return to these issues shortly, by way of the delegit-imization strategy, but first let’s examine this revised apartheid anal-ogy on its own terms. In essence, Israel stands accused of revivingthe bantustan policy of the apartheid regime in the Palestinian terri-tories. In fact, some detractors, such as UN official John Dugard,11

assert that Israel’s offenses “surpass those” of South Africa, but theseclaims do not hold up under scrutiny. Devised in the 1940s, theconcept of the bantustans, separate “homelands” for blacks, wasintrinsic to the racist culture of the apartheid regime and its pre-scription of separate (and unequal) development for different racialgroups. By the 1970s the poverty-stricken bantustans were home tonearly four million blacks, many of whom were forcibly deportedand deprived of their South African citizenship. Starved of resourcesand entirely dependent on the apartheid regime (since the absenceof international recognition meant that international aid was notavailable), the bantustans were nonetheless touted as a permanentsolution for South Africa’s black population. By transferring theblack population in its entirety to the bantustans, the architects ofapartheid intended to make sure that pressure for majority rulenever reached critical mass.

Distorting the Meaning of Apartheid 11

tal rights. Such a system of governance has its parallels in the MiddleEast, but they are not to be found in Israel. The spectacle of minori-ties ruling over majorities is a common one in the Arab world: inBa’athist Syria, where the Alawis have long been dominant despite aSunni majority; in Bahrain, where the Shi’a majority is ruled by aSunni minority; or, until recently, in Ba’athist Iraq, where SaddamHussein’s dictatorship concentrated Sunni Arabs from the Tikritregion in positions of power. Yet even in these cases, where repres-sive and authoritarian states have been appropriated by minorities,the analogy with apartheid is inept—unless, of course, the purposeis merely to employ the word “apartheid” as a term of abuse.

What made the apartheid system in South Africa peculiar wasthe manner in which racism was enshrined in law. The only credibleparallel would be Nazi Germany following the promulgation of theNuremburg Laws. Just as the Nazis legally degraded Germany’s Jew-ish citizens, the legislators of apartheid South Africa passed a matrixof laws and regulations that imposed a hellish form of discrimina-tion on the nonwhite majority. Through such measures as theGroup Areas Act (1950), the Bantu Education Act (1953), theReservation of Separate Amenities Act (1953), the Suppression ofCommunism Act (1950), and the Prohibition of Mixed MarriagesAct (1949), the apartheid regime micromanaged the lives of its sub-jects on the basis of their skin color. Under apartheid, it was the lawthat determined where blacks could live, what they could (or moreprecisely, could not) study, which seats they could occupy on publictransport, what they could (or could not) speak and write, withwhom they could (or could not) share a bed or marry.

Therefore, it follows that if apartheid is understood as the ruleof racist law, any comparison with Israel—or any other country—needs to begin at the point of the law. Even a cursory examinationof Israeli law reveals an explicit commitment to the principle of theequality of all citizens, regardless of background. On that basisalone, there is no rational foundation for the apartheid analogy.

At the same time, the apartheid analogy has evolved in terms offocus and substance. Perhaps mindful that the comparison with thelegal culture and practices of the State of Israel undermines rather

10 The Ideological Foundations of the Boycott Campaign Against Israel

The Agenda of Delegitimization

In the same way that the boycott movement frequently abuses thehistory and meaning of the word “Holocaust,” so does it distort theword “apartheid.” This comparison is not the result of any rigorousanalysis. It is about twisting historically-specific meanings to servethe agenda of delegitimization. This requires that the word“apartheid” be deliberately reserved for Israel, to underline its illegit-imacy. There are plenty of other democracies where discriminationis a fact of life; look, for example, at the treatment of the Roma andSinti (Gypsy) peoples in the new democracies of Eastern Europe.Yet the Czech Republic is not described as an apartheid state. Hun-gary is not the target of a boycott.

The thesis that Israel resembles apartheid South Africa is a fic-tion. Moreover, it is a fiction that is politically necessary to preservethe fundamental aim of the boycott movement: not the withdrawalof Israel to the 1967 lines, but its dissolution as a sovereign state. Ofcourse, this is not to suggest that every person who advocates a boy-cott of Israel necessarily supports this goal, but it is the goal of thosewho have created the boycott movement and who set its agenda andpriorities. It is a goal that is consistent with the broad trajectorydescribed here, which sees in the persistence of Jews and Jewishidentity an abnormality and which seeks to eradicate the founda-tions—territorial, cultural, political—for a conscious, self-definingJewish existence in Israel and the Diaspora.

The Agenda of Delegitimization 13

Applying the charge of “bantustanization” to Israel assumes thatIsrael’s presence in the Palestinian territories is permanent and thatit is therefore parceling up the land accordingly—hence the portray-al of the Jewish settler movement as an arm of the state. However,the policies of successive Israeli governments over the last decadehave, if anything, indicated the temporary nature of Israel’s controlover the Palestinian areas. Israel has disengaged fully from Gaza andfrom outlying regions of the West Bank and has made clear its will-ingness to consider land swaps in any final status negotiations.

On this critical point, the bantustan comparison is found want-ing, much as it is in other significant areas. There is, for example, nogovernment policy to forcibly deport Arab citizens of Israel to thePalestinian territories. Nor has the Palestinian Authority been ham-pered by a lack of international legal personality, as was the casewith the bantustans. To the contrary, the PA is near universallyregarded, including by Israel, as a state-in-the-making; as a result, ithas received billions of dollars in international aid and assistancesince its creation. Were the PA really a bantustan, international pol-icy would be to undermine it, so as not to compromise with a crea-ture of apartheid. Instead, policy has oriented toward strengtheningand stabilizing the PA.

In sum, the apartheid regime and its bantustans were the prod-uct of the application of racist doctrines in law. By any reasonableassessment, neither these doctrines nor such laws can be discernedin the Israeli context. What can be discerned is precisely that whichmakes Israel unremarkable among multiethnic nations: the fact thatcomplaints of discrimination frequently emerge from the Arabminority, as well as from segments of its Jewish populace. This is notto make light of discrimination nor to claim that Israel’s state insti-tutions have always responded to these legitimate concerns with thenecessary sensitivity. The overriding point here is that discrimina-tion, however disturbing, is manifestly not the same as apartheid.

12 The Ideological Foundations of the Boycott Campaign Against Israel

Footnotes

1. Ben Cohen, “The Persistence of Anti-Semitism on the British Left,”Jewish Political Studies Review 16:3-4 (Fall 2004).

2. Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” in Selected Essays (New York:International Publishers, 1926), p. 97.

3. Quoted in Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism (New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston, 1992), p. 435.

4. Isaac Deutscher, “Israel’s Spiritual Climate,” in The Non-Jewish Jew(London: Merlin Press, 1981), pp. 126-52.

5. Jean-Paul Sartre, Anti-Semite and Jew (New York: Schocken Books,1948), p. 58.

6. W. D. Rubinstein, The Left, The Right and the Jews (London: CroomHelm, 1982), p. 115.

7. Jostein Gaarder, “God’s Chosen People,” Aftenposten, 5 August 2006. 8. Theodore Freedman (ed.), Anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union: Its Roots

and Consequences (New York: Anti-Defamation League, 1984), pp. 583-87. 9. For further discussion, see Ben Cohen, “The Right To Exist: Anti-

Zionism at the United Nations,” Engage Journal, January 2006, available athttp://www.engageonline.org.uk/journal/index.php?journal_id=5&article_id=16.

10. Jimmy Carter, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (New York: Simon andSchuster, 2006).

11. John Dugard, “Israelis Adopt What South Africa Dropped,” AtlantaJournal-Constitution, 29 November 2006.

14 The Ideological Foundations of the Boycott Campaign Against Israel

AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE

American Jewish Committee The Jacob Blaustein Building165 East 56 StreetNew York, NY 10022

The American Jewish Committee publishes in these areas:•Hatred and Anti-Semitism • Pluralism • Israel• American Jewish Life • International Jewish Life • Human Rights

www.ajc.org

September 2007 $2.50